kowenicki said:
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:
@rol
Question
Devs wont see it that way? Whats to stop their marketing departments from saying "we cold seel both games in a limited run avoid paying double the fees and spread our brand name to multiple consoles meanwhile making the game sales appear larger than normal."? If a consumer is unlikely to sell two copies of the same game to the same person, why not increase that chance by bundling?
(...) |
Yes, they won't see it that way. What is going to stop them is that their bosses will not want to give up on money they think they can charge. Just look at FIFA 13 for Vita. That kind of greed is the reality, it's all about short term thinking for third parties. But worse for Sony, this is the Vita which is the follow-up to the system (PSP) which had no software ecosystem to speak of for years in the most important market (the USA). Therefore building a brand name on Vita won't be much of a concern for third parties by default, because they probably don't expect the system to move much software at all.
Your last sentence... I will have to answer that by assuming what it could mean: There aren't many people who own both a PS3 and PSV to begin with. There are even less people who would want to play the same game on both devices. Paying $80 for two copies of the same game is an idea that will be appreciated by maybe a few thousand people, because most gamers are content with paying $60 and playing through the entire game on their home console.
But I'll throw you a bone. For those few thousand people it would be an amazing offering if standardized. Your idea is cool from a gamer's perspective, but highly unrealistic from a corporate angle.
|
Which is what I said in my first post and is patently obvious to anyone with a commercial brain and not looking at this from a fans angle.
|
From the OP: "2: bundling. offer a ps3/vita game bundle (linited availability at first) to include both games for 80$"
